Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 2019No. CV-18-0137-SAPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBolick, J.

¶30 I agree with the majority that the Arizona Corporation Commission has no authority "to regulate the condemnation of water utilities," the narrow question the City presented to us on special action review, and that the City has standing to pursue the action. However, the Court goes further to divest the Commission of authority to protect the interests of water consumers in the event the transfer of the water utility here is actually a voluntary transaction dressed up as an exercise of eminent domain.

¶31 The majority correctly identifies the usual dividing line regarding which governmental…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Lee v. WeismanSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. St. Joe Corp. v. McIverSupreme Court of Florida · 2004
  3. Third Nat. Bank in Nashville v. Impac Limited, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Ruiz v. HullArizona Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. MillerArizona Supreme Court · 1993

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API